Personally, I was more concerned about the claim that Cory was reactionary, which doesn’t seem to be true from his writing (he appears to be somewhere between radical and progressive).
1 Like
Some dictionaries have broader definitions. I think the word is used to describe people who are overly reactive - that is, they jump up and start attacking something without taking the time to see what it is - especially but not exclusively in right-wing politics.
1 Like
Exactly this. By no means was I trying to pigeonhole Cory’s political viewpoints with a label. I saw this specific story, and Cory’s tendency to leap on tidbits of information and then extrapolate IMAX-sized slanderous conclusions, as a reactionary way to write.
So I should read it as knee jerk reaction rather than knee jerk reactionary? Got it.
I don’t know if it is because I am from Britain or it’s the groups I associate with, but I only really see the political meaning of reactionary used.
Sorry about the misunderstanding.
I think your X variable you placed into my quote isn’t as variable as you may think it is. While there is no doubt fanboy fervor for nearly anything and everything on the Internet (especially cats!), there’s also a question of scale, intensity and context. There’s an average mean for all of this and then there’s… Google (and cats).
Responses to criticisms for many products, corporations and (especially) megalomaniacs tends to throw rationality out of the window along with any focus on externalities and net losses for society. That’s the power of effective public relations, philanthropic manipulation, media conditioning, lobbying, astroturfing, manufacturing consent and a dearth of proper critical thinking skills among some of the public.
But when it comes to Google itself, the fervor in which people and astroturfers across the entire Internet come to defend and apologize for the company and its current and former CEOs is unlike anything else I’ve ever seen (maybe aside from cats ;)). I will admit it’s beginning to wane since the Snowden leaks, but it’s still more fervent and widespread than anything else.
This shouldn’t surprise you, Google is the most powerful corporation in the world and one of the most feared. With that kind of power, it buys massive public relations, lobbying power, media conditioning and astroturfing on a scale that dwarfs everyone else.
For every article you find that’s critical of Google, you’ll see scores of apologist “articles” that rush to their defense. Very often the defenders are SEO marketing websites beholden to Google, etc. or are simply any other media organization that fears being destroyed by Google.
It’s one thing for a corporation like Apple to have massive reserves of money they can throw around for influence, but it’s quite another to hold the keys to the Internet through the most vastly popular search engine while also being in collusion with shadow government, spy agencies, etc.
You just don’t screw with Google and not expect consequences. With the flick of an algorithm your business can disintegrate into online obscurity by the same company that also knows many secrets about you and your employees. That’s power… and that’s vastly too much corporatist power.
1 Like
You know, I don’t think “knee-jerk” means what that guy thinks it means
I’m not sure that guy is using the term as anything but a weapon anyway. The term is just used as a disingenuous means to disparage someone he radically disagrees with. In other words, I’m not sure even he believes his own bullshit.
On the other hand, I think Cory really does think of Eric Schmidt as a war crimes apologist and colossal hypocrite. It’s not something knee-jerk, nor insincere once one uses critical thinking and puts Cory’s “headline” into proper context and perspective.
I think there’s a difference between sincerely venting opinions on your own blog and producing a disingenuous headline and copy for a New York Times news article meant to trick people into going into wars based upon lies, etc.
Somewhere, I think you may have lost that perspective.
you have to admit Cory’s headlines are sometimes total clickbait, and say things which are not actually true - like calling Schmidt a “war crimes apologist.”
There’s nothing for me to admit unless you want to give me a better example. I’m sure you can point to mistakes and I’ll agree that Cory, like anyone, has made them. But, I don’t agree with you here that Schmidt isn’t a “war crimes apologist” in context of his past actions and words. I don’t agree with you that Cory has spoken a mistruth here in this case.
I think you may be losing touch with where you are here. This is Boing Boing, not the bullshit Wall Street Journal. This is a place for critical thinkers to look beyond the copy of a single post or a few links beyond a post title.
They aren’t even really headlines. They are post titles. People keep screeching about terrible, misleading “headlines” as if Cory is posting a dry headline for a corporatist news organization reporting on an airline disaster. They are post titles for opinion pieces on his fucking blog. I will use the term “headline” because it’s shorter than calling them post titles, but I’m not going to confuse a Boing Boing headline with a Wall Street Journal news piece headline in the process.
When I read Cory’s post titles I put them in context of his past posts, the posts of his compatriots, his past actions and evolving situations that surround all of it. It’s an exercise in critical thinking, not an exercise in spoon-feeding.
I do think it’s healthy to challenge Cory’s point of view, I enjoy the debates and I’m positive he gooses the pedantic and the more challenged critical thinkers among us. But, once the posts in these threads devolve into knee-jerk, reactionary drivel such as “Cory sure loves his knee-jerk reactionary clickbait headlines!”, it becomes a bore and it’s just time for those posters to move on to ranting at the comment sections of news organizations.
Maybe it’s time for you move on? I don’t know. If his challenging style of posting makes you unhappy and you think it’s worthless clickbait, maybe it’s time for you to stop taking what you perceive as bait?
Is it time for Cory to dumb down his posts as Boing Boing widens its audience? Not in my opinion. Boing Boing will turn to shit. This is a place for critical thinkers. If people get frustrated because Cory doesn’t explain in detail what they can find out for themselves, then I’m not sure this place is the right fit. Unless they enjoy their own confused fits, that is.
the public gets what they deserve
not what they demand
unless we all decide to be
a business, not a band
-
Agent Orange, Breakdown
2 Likes
Clearly, yes. See Wikileaks/Manning/Snowden leaks, etc.
1 Like
IRT email providers knowing your name: I agree it’s possible, but not within the means of an average user who is likely to email themselves or have things emailed to them that identify them beyond any doubt.
IRT the article you linked… it’s a red herring to present it like it’s a google thing. This from the article itself:
“A group (primarily Google, Apple and Microsoft) recently came to agreement on a set of core security principles. When we reach this point in our projects we schedule a classified briefing for the CEOs of key companies to provide them a brief on the specific threats we believe can be mitigated and to seek their commitment for their organization to move ahead … Google’s participation in refinement, engineering and deployment of the solutions will be essential.”
So Cook, Balmer et al would have received this email. It’s also telling that an article that uses two emails obtained under a FOI request to set up the story as if Google (and, of course, not others who are also indirectly implicated) has a “close relationship with the NSA” but then waits until the end of the article to reveal that neither Schmidt or Brin attended the meeting at which their presence was notionally ‘essential’.
1 Like
- That’s within their right. Google have never made a secret of the fact that if you’re caught trying to game their algorithm you will be blacklisted. The quality of their search product is reliant on relevant results and gaming their algorithm directly works against maintaining relevancy. They have a duty to their users and shareholders to maintain the best product possible. There is also no law saying they must list people in their results.
It’s completely within their right to do whatever they want with their product, and at no point did I say that it wasn’t. You’re refuting an argument that no one made.
The question was, does Google punitively change their search results, and the answer is, yes, they clearly do.
1 Like
Yes. The question was a joke.
Since, I assume, BB is not trying to game Google’s algorithm I don’t expect them to be punitive against BoingBoing. You’re answering a question that no one is asking, merely to post some links to show how deep and rich your knowledge on the subject is.
Do you have any examples where Google was punitive for negative editorial coverage? Since I know you don’t, you can knock point 3 off your little anti-google screed there.
While I appreciate your insight into my motives, I was obviously responding to @dalesat 's sneers. Maybe I shouldn’t have referred to it as a “question,” but you know what a figure of speech is, right?
Again, at no point did I argue or imply that Google punished anyone for their editorial coverage.
Let me make it simpler: RapGenius transgressed against Google’s rules, the penalty for which was a downgrade in their search rankings.
That’s a punishment. You may say it’s justified, and maybe it is, but it’s still a punishment. Me, I think point 3 still stands.
1 Like
Point 3 stands but is not relevant to anything anyone’s said.
No one was making the argument that google doesn’t take action against websites for supposed transgressions of the rules. You said in the point that google does “in fact” blah blah blah - as if someone was arguing that they don’t.
They are not straw man arguments, but are his snarky hyperbole in response to what he, and many, sees as Cory’s hyperbole on this subject. The real name thing is, IMO, a non-topic since no web service at all seriously demands you use your real name. Facebook, Google, Twitter, you name it… none of them have my real name. None of the accounts have ever been suspended or closed. Could it happen? Yes. Can you get around it if it does happen? Yes.
Wow. So this is a place for critical thinkers, unless they criticize Cory, in which case they are knee-jerk reactionaries who should GTFO? I am so glad you aren’t a moderator.
I don’t see him apologising for war crimes anywhere.
Is war crime enabler a better term, then? How about megalomaniacal, securitocracy lapdog?
When someone in Schmidt’s position pushes aside the good that whistleblowers do in exposing war crimes and instead claims that the whistleblowers themselves are the problem, that’s a pretty damn good apologist and/or enabler for war crimes.
He sweeps war crimes under the rug and even cozies up with war criminal Condoleezza Rice while attacking whistleblowers.
Fuck this guy.
It’s relevant to what @dalesat said – his hyperbolic statements implied those things don’t happen, and I simply pointed out that they do.
1 Like
So this is a place for critical thinkers
Yep, I hope so or it’s a boring waste of time and yet another lowest common denominator on the Internet.
unless they criticize Cory
Nope.
Go back and read where I literally said that I think it’s healthy to challenge Cory’s point of view. Nowhere have I said nor implied that any and all criticism of Cory is unwarranted nor lacks critical thinking if one does so.
I gave a very specific example of the kind of whiney post that doesn’t contribute anything but divisiveness, trite bickering and distractions from important issues. And, mission accomplished, by the way…
If you or anyone else wants to start an “I hate the style of Cory’s posts” thread instead of addressing the issues he brings up, then open up a new BBS thread and enjoy your spirited whine-fest there. I don’t understand the purpose of derailing the threads here for that kind of esoteric drivel.
It’s one thing to say you disagree with Cory’s characterization of Eric Schmidt as a war crimes apologist and explain why you think so… it’s quite another thing to derail and descend the conversation into how Cory is some kind of disingenuous “clickbait” artist, etc.
in which case they are knee-jerk reactionaries who should GTFO?
I showed a very specific example of someone who spewed a knee-jerk post.
Once again, I don’t think posting, “Cory sure loves his knee-jerk reactionary clickbait headlines!” is a productive way to enter a conversation about Cory Doctorow’s grievances with Eric Schmidt nor the greater issues surrounding Google in this regard, etc.
That doesn’t mean, nor infer that I think any and all criticism towards Cory means people should GTFO and I resent that kind of obtuse insinuation. But, if someone’s sole purpose is to piss and moan in such a trite manner in these threads, then it’s probably time to focus on writers they enjoy instead of acting like infants.
I am so glad you aren’t a moderator.
Beware of what you don’t wish for… 
I am sad that you descended to this level of conversation. I thought it was beneath you. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder lately when it comes to Cory, etc. - I hope you get over it or start an appropriate thread to discuss it and iron things out, if possible.
1 Like
IRT email providers knowing your name: I agree it’s possible, but not within the means of an average user who is likely to email themselves or have things emailed to them that identify them beyond any doubt.
I see your point.
IRT the article you linked… it’s a red herring to present it like it’s a google thing.
It is a Google thing.
Just because other tech companies were involved at certain levels doesn’t diminish Google’s participation.
I really don’t understand that line of reasoning except to attempt to diminish Google in this. If that’s your goal, it’s not working.
So Cook, Balmer et al would have received this email.
So what?
Did you not read the leaked emails? While I’m sure the NSA contacted the others, the leaked emails are particular exchanges between Google and the NSA.
Cory’s post is about Eric Schmidt. I posted a link that shows Google has had a much closer relationship with the NSA than they’ve insinuated in the past.
Nothing you’ve stated or quoted has changed this situation for Google. Sorry, but this line of distraction isn’t going to work on me.
It’s also telling that an article that uses two emails obtained under a FOI request to set up the story as if Google (and, of course, not others who are also indirectly implicated) has a “close relationship with the NSA”
Not others?
You should go back and read the article from the beginning. From literally the very first paragraph they mention other Silicon Valley companies being involved with government surveillance and they even link to a Reuters article in the first paragraph on the very issue mentioning Oracle, Microsoft, etc. and “virtually every major software vendor” having ties.
And, once again, this all lets Google off the hook how, anyway? It doesn’t.
but then waits until the end of the article to reveal that neither Schmidt or Brin attended the meeting at which their presence was notionally ‘essential’.
Um, that wasn’t at the end of the article. And, if you read the emails themselves, you’ll also see where there’s obvious intent to reschedule at another time.
You seem to want to attack the messenger (journalists) instead of any focus on the message itself. Very ironic considering the context of Cory’s post here.
It’s not a defence of Google it’s an assault on journalists writing posts and articles that unfairly portray Google to be worse than their peers which, setting aside the scale of the information they hold, is patently untrue. They are all bad, Google just happens to have more information on most of us and as such has a greater responsibility to ensure it’s dealt with correctly (which I’ll agree at times they don’t).
Not others?
Judging from the article title, which you and I know is the only part of the article that 95% of people read, you wouldn’t know it was about other sillicon valley players:
EXCLUSIVE: EMAILS REVEAL CLOSE GOOGLE RELATIONSHIP WITH NSA
I’m not attacking anyone per se, but I hate breathless journalism that doesn’t live up to its promise. Sadly it is the style du jour to attack google of late so of course it seems like I’m attacking journalists. The message is fine, some people just disagree with it and it isn’t because we lack information or scope on the subject. We’ve read the same sources and come to a different conclusion.
[quote=“teapot, post:49, topic:30571”]
That’s within their right … There is also no law saying they must list people in their results.[/quote]
Ha… gawd…
Right, it’s called distraction and carefully moving the goal posts while hoping no one else notices. I’m glad to see you’re not falling for it, either.
1 Like
